Law and Order: SVU – Meet the Bakers. Starring the dad from Two of a Kind.

In October,  NBC announced  Law and Order: SVU would tackle the Duggar family scandal. In spite of almost never watching SVU, I immediately knew this episode would capture my attention. (Gee, I wonder why?)

No other reality TV family has broadcast as many lies, secrets and falsehoods as the Duggars. They are the perfect public figures to build a standard, ripped-from-the-headlines, whodunit narrative around. But this episode of SVU presents an elaborate fantasy. The path the fictional patriarch and matriarch take to healing and redemption is unlikely to ever unfold in the real world space the Duggars occupy.

The episode “Patrimonial Burden” follows the fallout after the 13-year-old daughter of an Evangelical reality TV family falls pregnant.  We meet the Baker family, stars of Baker’s Dozen (someone at TLC wishes they had pitched this show) as they gather in New York City for daughter Lane’s Virtue Ball.

The Bakers are eerily similar to the Duggars. Shots of the family exiting a bus echoes 19 Kids and Counting’s constantly expanding opening sequence.

There’s an older, married daughter happily displaying how the family’s beliefs have been perfect for her. There’s a kind of a creepy teenage brother and too many younger kids whose names you’ll never bother to learn. Most importantly, the Baker daughters crave patriarchal approval because as Frank Baker says in voiceover: “it is important for girl to feel love and acceptance. If she’s not getting that from her father, she seeks it from other men.”

The Virtue Ball is reminiscent of the many ceremonies featured on 19 Kids and Counting. Tons of people (seriously, where do all these Evangelicals come from?) gather in a church room and proclaim their religious beliefs for everyone to see. Interestingly enough, the Duggar daughters were never subjected to a Virtue Ball. The key element that made the Duggars relatable and maintained their show’s longevity was the masking of the most extreme aspects of their Evangelicalism.  Instead, Quiverfull beliefs about a woman’s purity and place are relegated to the many episodes focused on courtship, marriage and pregnancy. (See episodes: “Duggar Dating Rules,” “Duggar Daughter Dates”.)

Now for the scandal. Lane collapses at the Virtue Ball and is rushed to the hospital. Doctors discover she is three months pregnant, which brings the SVU team in to investigate. Just like that, SVU finds themselves embroiled in a cray cray situation with more turns than anyone saw coming.

Unsurprisingly the Bakers refuse to comply with the police investigation, preferring to keep Lane’s pregnancy under wrap. Their spiritual advisor Pastor Eldon arrives and assures SVU that the family and their local law enforcement will handle the situation. Privately.

Back at SVU HQ, Detective Benson (Mariska Hargitay) wonders why the Bakers are afraid of outsiders investigating Lane’s statutory rape. Are they just protecting the kids? As Detective Rollins  (Kellie Giddish) wisely points out, the Bakers are more likely protecting their brand because: “Look at what happened to the Duggars. Word gets out that one of those virgin Baker daughters is knocked up, there goes the TV show, the book deal, the multi-million dollar chastity empire.”

The interplay between insular religious communities and reality television is fascinating.  Without their religion, families like the Duggars would not be subjects of a reality show empire and would not have built a “family like a company“. In turn, they can’t support the megasized families Evangelism eagerly encourages. (Most Quiverfull families live in poverty.) The public Evangelical-family brand – consisting of tv shows, blogs, and books – functions as both subtle and extreme Evangelical messaging. Once any cracks in the facade are revealed, then the brand becomes unsustainable.

Basically me.

Detective Rollins digs through the Baker family’s website to find the necessary clues for solving the case. The detectives focus on people in the Baker family’s inner circle, including the reality show’s cameraman. The investigation takes SVU to the family’s close-knit town in Catskills, where the presence of patriarchal figures loom. But is the sketchy cameraman the actual culprit?

After all, this is Law and Order. The show is a master at crafting the perfect whodunit and there will always be several plot twists throughout an episode. When the cameraman’s alibi checks out (thanks vasectomy!), the detectives begin finding many disturbing secrets about the Bakers. Did the teenage Baker son father his sister’s secret baby? Eek. (Now that’s one way to one up Josh Duggar.) Still the Bakers, under the guidance of their pastor/lawyer, won’t reveal information that could harm their family.

Then Detective Benson makes the ultimate power move: she appeals to matriarch Pam.

Benson uses this tactic quietly throughout the investigation. She is empowering Pam to take the initiative she’s not allowed to have. It is the only way Benson vis-a-vis Pam can help and protect the Baker daughters. But will this tactic work?

DNA evidence reveals Pastor Eldon to be the father and the detectives race to upstate New York and find this scene.

Creepy Pastor Eldon, the rapist of two Baker daughters, has agreed to marry Lane and protect her. The previously clueless parents are filled in on the good pastor’s lies and they flip out. Especially Mama Baker. She ignores Pastor Eldon’s command that she obey her husband and declares that she and her daughters will testify. However, the best moment comes after Pastor Eldon says the Bakers will want to protect their reality show. Pam Baker is having none of it.

With this moment, the Baker family begins to heal and their brand (probably) gets to stay in tact.

Yet how Law and Order: SVU used the Duggar scandal to address abuse in Evangelical churches is a complete fantasy. In fact, Pastor Eldon being revealed as Lane Baker’s rapist is hardly a major plot twist. In Evangelical churches, the psychological and sexual abuse of women is rampant. The community goes to great lengths to protect abusers like Josh Duggar. The only way to change this, as evidenced by the many heartbreaking victim testimonies, is to leave the church and speak out. As the SVU episode concludes, we never get a sense if the Bakers are leaving their church.

“Patrimonial Burden”  demonstrates what Evangelical churches fear the most. By giving women agency, the most powerful abusers will go to jail and a church built on keeping women in their place falls into disarray. No practicing Evangelical will probably see this episode of Law and Order.

What happens to these Evangelical circles after scandal is more interesting than the scandal itself. For the Duggars, the public show is still going on. Jill and Jessa: Counting On premieres in December. Believe me, I’ll be watching.

Via Gawker

The San Bernardino shooting yesterday became the 355th mass shooting in the United States this year. As we enter the second day of news coverage about this horrific event, the typical narrative surrounding a mass shooting is significantly different than the coverage of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, the Umpqua Community College shooting, the Charleston church shooting . (How depressing is it that we know exactly how the standard media narrative following a mass shooting the U.S. will play out?)

But pay attention to how the media will frame the San Bernardino shooting. As more information comes to light about the shooters, we will dealing with a completely different story. I was watching CNN last night just as Don Lemon and co. became convinced it wasn’t just another mass shooting but rather an act of terrorism. Following the Paris terrorist attacks on November 13, this rhetorical shift is dangerous.

Whatever the reasons behind the shooting, two contradictory perspectives cannot be effectively balanced in the media. There can be no nuanced discussions about any of the many issues that come into play (gun control, mental health, anti-terrorism) when a mass shooting happens. 

Have you heard about Freeform? If you haven’t, then you’re probably not invested in Pretty Little Liars’ five-year jump. (Seriously, can anyone explain how Alison is a high school English teacher?)

Announced in October, Freeform is the new and improved, edgy teenage version of ABC Family. It’s a less wholesome kind of family with more of exactly what ABC Family has been producing since 2010, when PLL became the network’s staple show. Unlike Secret Life of the American Teenager,  current shows like Switched at Birth, Chasing Life and The Fosters present complicated and poignant portrayals of young adulthood and families without preaching or pandering. Nevertheless, the rebrand is a necessary shift for ABC Family, a cable network whose key audience has changed and whose brand identity has always been… wait for it… freeform. According to Variety, Freeform “marks a continued effort to evolve the young-skewing network past traditional family viewing and toward its target audience of “Becomers,” a network-coined term defined as those in the life stage spanning ages 14 to 34”.

That’s right, “becomers” and no, it doesn’t make sense to me either. The ABC Family executives’ rationale behind the term is a head-scratcher but such is the nature of network rebranding, which typically occurs during times of crises. Yet, there are more prevailing concerns about ABC Family’s relaunch and it connects to one of favorite my topics: the relationship between American evangelicalism and media companies.

But first, why is Freeform happening now? For many cable networks, brand rehabilitation is a necessary evil. Particularly now. In the age of digital streaming, audience viewing habits have drastically changed and viewership is down. This is a trend for all cable networks.  As media and tech analyst Richard Greenfield told The New Yorker: “The way people watch TV really is changing dramatically. And no traditional media company is doing a good job of dealing with it.” For ABC Family, total audience is down 8% and it has also seen a 7% decrease in the coveted 18-to-34 demographic.

Logistically speaking, the timing of the rebrand is perfect. Not only do ABC Family’s cornerstone programs have a frenzied social media following (#Jonnor), but also 25 Days of Christmas is the network’s most profitable and visible programming block (100 million viewers tuned in 2014). If you’re going rebrand as minimally as possible, then promote the process when as many as people are watching. In other words, it was basically now or never for ABC Family.

But as Ross Garner asserts in a case study of ITV’s rebranding in 2013 : “Equating channel rebranding with periods of either struggle or crisis provides too simplistic an understanding of why these exercises take place.” For ABC Family, now Freeform, here’s the catch. No matter how hard the network tries to shake its wholesome family friendly image, ABC Family associated with Christian broadcasting. How many times have you caught the beginning of The 700 Club at 10 AM, 11 PM or (gulp) 3 AM before cringing and turning off your television? Probably more times than you pray with Joel Osteen on Sunday mornings.

The 700 Club is synonymous with ABC Family. This is because televangelist Pat Robertson founded the network, then called the CBN Satellite Service, in 1977. Over the next two decades, CBN evolved into The Family Channel until it was purchased by Fox in 1998 and became the Fox Family Channel. (Do you remember The New Addams Family or S Club 7 in Miami? They aired on Fox Family.) What was a condition of CBN’s sale to Fox? The 700 Club could not be dropped. The same goes for the Walt Disney Company when it acquired the network in 2001 and ABC Family was born.

What’s truly fascinating? Back in October when Freeform was announced, ABC executives were coy about what would happen to The 700 Club. But here’s  a more direct admission: “The 700 Club will continue to air on Freeform.” The show is worth $42.4 million annually and it is simply impossible to buy out Robertson. (Robertson will probably never die so that option is also out.)

So while a title card at the beginning of The 700 Club attempts to separate the network from Robertson, as Jacqui Shine, writing in The New Republic, notes: “however vigorous Freeform’s rebranding, [Robertson will] continue to lurk in the background.” As Evangelicals tend to do.

When looking at television networks and what are the motivational factors for rebranding, alway keep this in mind: money. Doing business with televanglicals comes with the risk of alienating a target audience but there are often larger financial ramifications when televanglicals are given the boot. It’s the same reason my good friends the Duggars aren’t going anywhere either.

So aside from an obviously frenetic brand identity, this is a central dilemma for Freeform moving forward. It is envisioned as a network for “becomers,” which really means it is a network for millennials. What millennials do not appreciate is hypocritical evangelicals. Whether or not the Becomer audience looks beyond #Ezria or #Brallie to fully see this conflict is an entirely different story.

Additional reading:

• Ross Garner. “Brand Reconciliation? A Case Study of  ITV’s 2013 Rebrand,” Critical Studies in Television, Spring 2015
• Jacqui Shine, “The Long, Strange History of ABC Family,” The New Republic, October 8 2015
• James Surowiecki, “Selling the Golden Egg Goose,” The New Yorker, November 23, 2015

The Academy Award nominations were announced today and for the second year in a row, the acting nominees were all-white. Straight Outta Compton, Creed, Will Smith in Concussion, Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation were all snubbed. And so, like that Hollywood sequel you didn’t ask for, #OscarsSoWhite is back. I’m both disappointed and not surprised. I don’t think anyone is truly surprised. Discussions of race and gender in Hollywood, both on screen and behind the camera, are never-ending. But more importantly, the Oscars are rooted in industry politics and its more clear than ever that Hollywood cannot escape itself.

Expectations are now being placed on host Chris Rock to say something, anything about this year’s Oscar snubs. But before you go down that rabbit hole, keep this in mind:

As I process yet another year of being disappointed by not only the Academy Award nominations but also by Hollywood in general, I have accepted that I simply don’t care as much as I once did.

There was a time when I would get stupidly excited about the Oscars. I would go to extremes to see every nominated movie and I didn’t care about the reasons why films were or were not nominated. Obsessing over the Oscars gave me a way to channel my attention and quell the boredom that comes from living in small town. This seems like a lifetime ago now. But I’m no longer a teenager, blinded by the glamour of Hollywood.

Via Lee & Low Books

My indifference towards the Oscars became undeniable around the year of The King’s Speech followed by the year of The Artist and then Argo, a hat trick of dull Oscar seasons. (Boring biopic, boring musical masked as a charming throwback, Ben Affleck’s ego.) I could also no longer ignore how Oscar recipients are almost exclusively white and male.

2014, the year of 12 Years a Slave and the arrival of Lupita N’yongo to save Hollywood from itself, seemed like the start of a real, palpable change. Then came last year and every non-controversy surrounding  Selma. I’ve never been more disheartened than while discussing Selma with my father, who refused to see a movie that inaccurately portrayed LBJ.

Lately, the constant barrage of movies that are overly white and male-oriented, which has always existed, weighs heavily on my mind and this carries over to my film going experience. I exit movie theaters feeling underwhelmed and disappointed more than ever. My general disappointment is coupled with the knowledge that the Oscars will never award interesting, dynamic and diverse performers, directors and films. If a movie like Creed cannot be nominated for anything (a mercy nomination for Stallone doesn’t count), then movies like Beasts of No Nation and Tangerine simply cannot compete against the likes of The Martian.  So I’ve stopped caring and I no longer want to see every movie with Oscar hype. I’ve evolved; the Oscars have not.

The Oscars are a component of the culture industry, a physical manifestation of what producers and Hollywood insiders decide is worthwhile cinema. These awards don’t celebrate great filmmaking; they push forward homogenized narratives and celebrate being adept at industry politics. The greatest failure of the AMPAS is its inability recognize diverse talent and electric filmmaking. But the reaction to the Oscar nominations these past two years shows audiences are hungry for more than what the culture industry currently allows.

I don’t actually hate the Academy Awards but I am certainly a passive bystander. I know the Oscars are a waste of time and yet I watch every year. I enjoy mundane cultural events and so, I enjoy the absurdity of a red carpet or an awards telecast. I enjoy how the Internet serves its only useful purpose by transforming into a collective cultural critic. (Help us if Leo wins an Oscar. Tumblr will self-combust.) Watching the Oscars still gives me a feeling of giddiness, the same feeling I used to get when going to the movies was still an event.

“Nowadays, everybody tells us what we need is more belief, a stronger and deeper and more encompassing faith. A faith in America and in what we are doing. That may be true in the long run. What we need first and now is to disillusion ourselves. What ails us most is not what we have done with America, but what we have substituted for America. We suffer primarily not from our vices or our weaknesses, but from our illusions. We are haunted, not by reality, but by those images we have put in place of reality.” Daniel Boorstin, The Image, 1962

The popularity of Bernie Sanders among millennial voters is rather extraordinary and it is striking a nerve among older voters, who are actively dismissing Sanders’ youngest and often most vocal supporters. Gloria Steinem’s criticism of young women voting for Sanders reveals a fundamental and generational divide between feminists. Steinem’s comments reveal something larger happening during this election. That is the divide between the Sanders and Clinton campaigns.

More and more, I am observing my peers share memes and misconceptions about the two Democratic nominees across social media. These memes, particularly the Bernie Bros, emphasize that for whatever reason, the Clinton campaign simply does not resonate with millennials. Among my friends, the same people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, are not supporting HRC. But why? Because Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old white Jewish man originally from Brooklyn, is somehow perceived as more authentic than Hillary Clinton.

The supposed evidence of Sanders’ authenticity often appears on Facebook. For instance, a friend recently updated her cover photo with the caption: “When you walk the walk”.

This is allegedly a photo of Bernie Sanders marching with MLK, Jr. at Selma in 1965 and it’s an internet hoax. Think about it. Do you really believe Sanders would go his ENTIRE political career (30+ years) without ever mentioning this photo? Or his presidential campaign, which needs moments like these (the real ones, not the fake ones) to elaborate the appeal of a Sanders’ presidency? The answer to both questions is no. But the memeification of Bernie Sanders is just selling what the Clinton campaign seems unable to produce.

Authenticity.

Media has always been integral in the creation of community, identity and authenticity. What was once solely the role of newspapers was replaced by photography and cinema at the turn of the twentieth century. Television then became an unparalleled force in the 1960s and now social media dominates discussions of what and who is “authentic” in today’s media landscape.

No matter the era, authenticity is what the public wants and media makers go to great lengths to generate. This fact became evident in 1960, with the first televised presidential debate between JFK-Nixon. If you have never watched the debate in its entirety, you should. Given the sideshow presidential debates have become thanks to he-who-must-not-be-named, the JFK-Nixon debate is like political Zoloft. The importance of this debate as a media event cannot be understated; it turned Nixon into a public embarrassment.

Television is a cool medium, to use McLuhan’s term. It requires a greater deal of interaction from the audience. It is because of television that “the old political values disappeared,” as explained by Joe McGinnis in The Selling of the President. (This is essentially the book you should read to gain a total grasp of media in present-day political campaigns.)  The Richard Nixon of 1960 could never be president as long as television played a role in determining the president. As McLuhan wrote, “The success of any TV performer depends on his achieving a low-pressure style of presentation.” For politicians, a low-pressure style of presentation encompasses televised debates and more recently, social media. So when Nixon ran for President again in 1968 television, the medium that Nixon considered a gimmick became the essential tool to revamping Nixon’s image. A team of advisors including Roger Ailes, capitalized on events such as the 1968 riots and mastered using television to sell Nixon as an authentic leader and the next President of the United States.

Fastfoward five decades. Thanks to television and now social media, we have reached a fervent demand for public officials, celebrities, essentially everyone who’s anyone, to be real. Whether it’s your face, your true story about seven strangers picked to live in a house, your values. It doesn’t matter how it is. Make it look real. Instagram is arguably the best social media platform public figures use to sell authenticity. The impact of a well-executed #tbt or 15-second video reverberates and in this presidential election, candidate’s attacks and memes travel farther than ever before.

And so in 2016, Bernie Sanders is authentic.

But Hillary Clinton is not.

Media, as it is employed by political campaigns, is more complicated than ever but it is still how candidates win elections. Without a clear message, politicians come across as pandering. When a lack of authenticity is revealed, like seen during Chris Christie’s takedown of Marco Rubio at the latest Republican debate, it signals the end of a election cycle. Some campaigns get this and manage to stay ahead, others never stood a chance (Bobby Jindal), never took the risk (Scott Walker) or simply couldn’t cut it (Rand Paul).

Campaigns ads on YouTube double as television spots and viral sensations. Twitter, Facebook and SnapChat are all used as ploys to attract the coveted 18-25-year-old demographic. But most importantly memes today function like television did in 1960s. The meme is a cool medium. There can be all the SnapChats in the world. But one meme can determine a candidate worthy of your time.

This meme, comparing Sanders and Clinton, has been circulating for a few weeks. No matter topic (usually an inane pop culture reference with nothing relative to actual governing), Clinton’s responses are always insipid and out-of-touch. She’s just saying whatever to get elected. Sanders, however, is your friendly grandpa who maybe doesn’t understand the Twitter. He gets what the kids are thinking. Every time this meme is shared, it emphasizes the perceived differences between Sanders and Clinton. More troubling, it deifies Sanders and it villainizes Clinton by perpetuating gender stereotypes.

But here’s the catch.

No politician is authentic and every politician is telling you what you want to hear. But you must blindly put your faith in someone’s leadership abilities time and time again. You want to believe that the guy you voted for in 2008, the one who promised you hope and change, will fulfill those promises eight years later. And when you’re disappointed by that guy, you seek out the next presumably authentic guy because you still believe in hope and change even though the democracy we live in means that reality is harder to achieve. It’s only when you can see past the image of the politician that has been created by media that maybe, just maybe, you can vote.

You probably heard by now, TLC has ordered a full season of Jill and Jessa: Counting On. If you didn’t know, I’m sorry to ruin your day. (But are you really that surprised? I did tell you this could happen and be successful.) But do not dismiss TLC’s continued commitment to the Duggars 2.0; this family and every nuanced aspect of their brand matters more than ever before.

Perhaps you have caught on to the extreme conservatism (and extreme progressivism for that matter) holding the United States hostage right now. The Duggars, as public evangelicals whose sole purpose is to normalize fundamentalist Christianity, are contributors to and a byproduct of the public sphere currently reshaping American politics and ideologies. Beyond that, as I’ve written before, 19 Kids and Counting and now Jill and Jessa: Counting On are part of a larger, complex media system. As much as you might hate the Duggars’ presence, they’re sticking around for a reason.

Before Josh Duggar’s sexual molestation scandal, a Duggars 2.0 spinoff seemed imminent and even a smart strategy for Discovery. After 10 years of recycled plot lines, 19 Kids had become stale and predictable. Every aspect of their lives was dictated by outdated gender norms. The Duggars also no longer attempted to hide their extremism in plain sight. Josh Duggar’s position with the Family Research Council as well as the family’s active presence on social media made their conservative family values public (and thus opened for criticism). Endless news coverage in People further blurred the lines between reality television and, well, reality. But Jill and Jessa’s respective wedding specials, which were  the highest rated programming in TLC history, showed no end to the Duggar enterprise. As long as the Duggar family was still the main attraction, a Duggars 2.0 spinoff was more than feasible.

What TLC and Discovery could not predict was the Duggar’s many lies becoming public. The backlash and subsequent cancellation of TLC’s highest rated and most profitable show sent the network scrambling. 19 Kids’ cancellation cost Discovery $19 million. By he end of summer 2015, TLC needed the Duggars to bankroll the network and the Duggars needed TLC to save their brand. (Why else would the Duggar daughters appear on TLC’s Breaking the Silence documentary?)

Jill and Jessa: Counting On was initially conceived as a three-part special that aired in December. It chronicled the recent developments in the Duggar family since the scandal. Jill and her family move to Central America for mission work. Jessa and husband Ben welcome their first child. Like 19 Kids, it depicts mundane family life. They pray, prepare meals and go shopping. Jill and Jessa is capped off with a nice dramatic home birth.

These episodes also effectively clean up Josh Duggar’s mess. So not only are the Duggar atoning for their brother but they are also asking audiences (and the network, to a greater extent) for one more chance. Without Jim Bob and Michelle lurking in the background, the Duggars 2.0 are more frank about their brother’s actions than ever imaginable on an average episode of 19 Kids. (Keep in mind, their comments are still reserved, carefully worded and without details. It is presumed that if you’re watching, you know what happened.) Josh’s wife Anna also appears and she dutifully plays the part of the forgiving Christian wife. My main takeaways from these episodes was that Jill and Jessa, the new stars of the Duggar universe, did not seem equipped to carry their own show. Without a zillion Duggars in the background, they are noticeably young, ill-prepared and… boring.

Despite my reservations, it is evident by now that TLC always intended for the Duggars to return. In January, TLC executive vice president and general manager Nancy Daniels discussed the ramifications of the Duggar scandal. “We are still considering doing more but haven’t made a decision yet,” was all she offered the Duggar’s future at the time. Then a week ago, InTouch shared grainy photos of the Duggars’ filming. Once I saw those pictures, I knew a new Duggar’s show was inevitable.

So we have arrived at this moment. Not only is there a new series but there is also a new kind of Duggars. (It’s almost as if they took a page out of the Cousin Amy playbook.)

In the trailer for Jill and Jessa: Counting On, the Duggars 2.0 are more defiant and united than ever. Perhaps because the Duggar kids finally aren’t constrained by the regimented rules of their upbringing. As Jessa narrates in the trailer, the scandal still follows them but they are moving forward as family. This strategy reinforces a narrative about the strength of Christian family values in times of crisis.

Some highlights from the trailer include Joy, siting on a backwards chair.

Jessa got bangs, which People compares them to Kate Middleton’s. (Bless you, People.)

They also jump and Jessa presents her Simba!

The tonal shift from 19 Kids to the Counting On special to this new series is striking. They seem fun, open and happy. Now that the family has apologized (while remaining highly rated), there is no stopping the Duggars.

Most importantly, as we saw on 19 Kids, the relationships between the Duggar women, as sisters, wives and now mothers, will drive most narratives. This is because the Duggars are a family of infinite contradictions. They are public evangelical and followers of a patriarchal religion. Yet every public sphere crafted and maintained throughout their multiple series is predominantly female.

Nonetheless it’s likely the show’s format won’t dramatically differ from 19 Kids. Jim Bob and Michelle will come by from time to time. All those other Duggars whose names you still don’t know will be around too. Josh’s absence will never be mentioned, although his wife and children will be nearby. The family will continue with trips to thrift stores and church. There will be more courtships, weddings and babies. Audiences will continue to tune in and TLC will continue to profit.

Welcome to the Duggars 2.0. It’s going to be a wild ride.

By now almost all of the hype surrounding Chris Rock’s Oscars is over. But there is still one moment I cannot shake. It has nothing to do with perfect human Brie Larson, precious cargo Joe Biden or endless meme generator Leonardo DiCaprio. It’s the bizarre appearance of Stacey Dash. What was Dionne from Clueless doing at the Oscars?

In case you missed it (how could you?), watch the clip below.

Like Chrissy Teigen, you cringed. I cringed. We all cringed.

Coming at the end of Rock’s monologue, which was either legendary or divisive depending who you ask, Dash is introduced as the Academy’s new Director of Minority Outreach.  You can hear the crickets in the audience as Dash walks on stage and awkwardly proclaims, “I can’t wait to help my people out! Happy Black History Month!” It’s a kind of joke that seemingly bombed and served no purpose.

It may be one twisted symbiotic relationship but Dash’s appearance is kind of genius. It’s subversive and weird and politically in tune with the entire monologue.

Stacey Dash is an intriguingly polarizing figuring. She played arguably the greatest black female teenager in an iconic teen comedy that introduced feminism to a generation of millennials. (I’m one of them.) Dionne is the best friend but never the sidekick. She makes Cher tolerable and keeps Murray in his place. She’s fierce, gutsy and inimitable.

But Stacey Dash is not Dionne. As a Fox News contributor, her controversial opinions about race and diversity lack self-awareness and always become buzzworthy. Her endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2012 made her conservative beliefs public. For Clueless fans, it is disheartening to accept that Dash is the polar opposite of Dionne. (Though, real talk, the Dionne of Bronson Alcott High would probably be a batty Real Housewife star today.)

But back to the original question: what was the point of Stacey Dash appearing at the Oscars? First, leading up to the Oscars, she spoke out against Black History Month and the BET Awards, now infamously saying “If we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the Image Awards, where you’re only awarded if you’re Black.” In liberal Hollywood, Stacey Dash stands out as a conservative black woman who is the antithesis of #OscarsSoWhite.

Yet her appearance can also be read as a comment on the “sorority-racist” white liberals still misunderstand the point of #OscarsSoWhite. There are not-very-famous Academy members who vote for and attend the Oscars. These not-very-famous members are not pleased with being called racists and object to the hashtag activism changing the industry.

(Who knows if the Academy’s sweeping membership changes will solve anything. Hollywood’s problems are deeply systemic and have little to do with actual AMPAS membership.)

So enter Stacey Dash. She is a divisive figure within the black community, making her opinions easy for both audiences and Hollywood to mock. Why not make her the punchline of a joke and bring her out as the Director of Minority Outreach? Yes the joke fell flat because Dash’s awkward delivery, lack of self-awareness, and the sheer absurdity of her presence. But if you didn’t grasp why she was at the Oscars, then maybe ask yourself how closely have you been following #OscarsSoWhite to begin with.

Yet it is unclear if she understood that she was the joke. On Patheos, the world’s largest English-language religious website, Dash wrote about her Oscars appearance:

“Which brings me to the joke. When they added ME to increase the diversity, I’m sure many black people rolled their eyes. I’m not “black enough,” they say. But guess what? I’ve heard that all my life. I would rather be a free thinking, black than a cookie cutter black who thinks – and votes – just like all my friends.”

With this statement, however out of touch it may be, Dash is further asserting herself as the go-to industry insider to comment against liberal Hollywood ideologies.

What’s probably more fascinating is the media spectacle surrounding Dash’s Oscar appearance. It garnered her more immediate and viral attention than any of her Fox News segments. For someone like Stacey Dash, who’s newfound conservative brand depends on controversy, this is much-welcomed publicity.

Since her Romney endorsement, Dash has been building a brand – from Clueless to conservatism. This is literally the title of her upcoming memoir, which would have been implausible until she announced her status as a conservative black woman in liberal Hollywood. She is using her most public image as Dionne from Clueless to make a profit and she’s doing it quite well.

This is just the start of Stacey Dash expanding her brand. Unless she says something utterly revolting, there will be more books and television appearances. Maybe there will be a headlining appearance at a conservative conference or a run for public office. Wherever it takes Dash next, this is a smart strategy and that’s just how it is.

In a presidential campaign where fantasy and reality are constantly clashing, the memeification of Bernie Sanders is a strange phenomenon. The fervent need to declare Sanders the most authentic presidential candidate falls somewhere between hysteria and deification. But now the Sanders phenomenon has reached a climactic moment. Sanders statistically probably won’t be the Democratic nominee but his perceived authenticity is still attracting rabid support.

Birdie Sanders, the meme that emerged after a bird landed on the podium as Sanders gave a speech in Portland, illustrates the spectacle surrounding his candidacy. The audience reaction, seen above, is mesmerizing. It is unreal. It is literally the unabashed fandom reserved for Tumblr manifesting itself at a political rally.

It’s also reminiscent of a trope commonly found in several Disney Princess movies.

The visual comparison between Birdie Sanders and Disney Princesses found its way into the subsequent meme; Buzzfeed posted several “amazing” examples. Like anything driven by nostalgia and the Internet, people were entertained by the comparison. But Birdie Sanders is not an adorable intersection of politics and pop culture. These memes do nothing more than show how the Disney Princess movie is almost always perceived as a charming fairy tale. The false nostalgia from childhood clouds the memory and value of deconstructing these movies.

Disney films and the role of the Disney Princess are a representation of prevailing American ideologies and myths. This is especially true of Disney films from the 1930s and 1940s which reflected the national mood at the time. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) elevated the fairy tale and debuted the “fantastical power of Disney’s animation”. According to Tracey Mollet, “[Walt] Disney used a focal point in 1930s culture, the tradition of musical film, to rally Americans to the cause of his fairy tale” (121). And so, the film popularized myths about the character of the American people, beginning with Snow White who “infuses hope and positivity into a society struggling with the Depression” (111). As Mollet explains, Snow White simply accepts her situation with patience and virtue until in the absence of material wealth, her spirit and love for Prince Charming triumphs (116).

Moreover, in Snow White, we see how the Wicked Queen is the embodiment of selfish individualism. The Dwarfs represent the success of collective work, stemming from the New Deal. They are also heroes, who adopt Snow White’s positive outlook and together, they defeat evil.  Most tellingly, the Dwarfs cottage is a reimagining of the Jeffersonian pastoral, promoting “rural idealism” and “a utopian vision that could never and would never be attained” (120). This is all the American Dream in a sanitized Disney format.

Beyond its representation of a Depression Era mentality and the American Dream, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs debuts the myth of the Disney Princess. Snow White is introduced as “the fairest one of all”. By the time she and some woodland animals sing “With a Smile and a Song,” with surprising optimism for someone who almost just murdered, the myth has been fully realized for every Disney Princess to come.

Snow White is marketed as the first Disney Princess and since the early 2000s, the Disney Princesses have become a media franchise like no other. It encompasses movies, animated tv shows, dolls, clothes, home decor and anything else you can imagine. It’s a $5.5 billion set of squad goals that directly clashes with postmodern feminism and causes you to pause when a 4-year-old asks you to dress her Princess Jasmine Barbie in a wedding gown. (You hate it, but you always dress that Barbie, don’t you?)

Like all Disney fairy tales, the Disney Princess takes part in the reformation of the American dream. She is valued for her kindness, her beauty, her bravery, her special connection to animals who become her protectors. But only because she alone can save the patriarchal rule of a kingdom through marriage and eventually producing a male heir.

The Disney Princess is a fantasy that shapes cultural gender ideologies.

Bernie Sanders is a Disney Princess, too, and not because a bird anointed him one. His campaign is a fantasy, capitalizing on the anxieties of marginalized communities and the ideals of progressives. It is not a political revolution.

Is it wrong to believe in the Sanders fantasy? No. What Sanders is selling is a good idea for the future of the United States. It’s a shift from the ideological narratives that have shaped the American national consciousness. There has never been a collective questioning of what that really entails until this election. It’s exposing the systemic issues plaguing the United States. It’s a dream that could (don’t tell Trump) actually Make America Great Again.

But the Sanders campaign promises are also “fantasy football for wonks“. These promises, as Ezra Klein wrote for Vox, suggest that Sanders: “isn’t very interested in learning the weak points in his ideas, that he hasn’t surrounded himself with people who police the limits between what they wish were true and what the best evidence says is true, that he doesn’t seek out counterarguments to his instincts, that he’s attracted to strategies that align with his hopes for American politics rather than what we know about American politics. And these tendencies, if they persist, can turn good values into bad policies and an inspiring candidate into a bad president.”

Sure, it’s just as plausible that Sanders supporters aren’t dreaming, they’re thinking. It is also plausible that maybe this election, which feels more like the apocalypse every day, will push Americans to vote in droves, fully participate in democracy and transform America so that it is “a government of the people, for the people, by the people”. But real talk, voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election broke records; by 2009, voter turnout was business as usual. If you don’t engage with the political system beyond presidential campaigns, then political revolutions cannot happen. Fantasies remain fantasies.

When this election is finally over, what will resonate is the rise of authoritarianism in American politics, the creation of a culture of fear reminiscent to the climate after 9/11, and the revelation, once again, that gender politics in America can derail a woman from ever being president.

There are no Fairy Godmothers to guide the Princess to the ball and the Happily Ever After promised by any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, isn’t attainable.

For more see: “With a smile and a song…” Walt Disney and the Birth of the American Fairy Tale, Tracey Mollet, 2013.

Amidst #FeeltheBern and #HillarySoQualified, I had my own Twitter debate and it escalated to a troubling conclusion. (This is a long post with some considerable exposition so I won’t be mad if you scroll down to the end.)

After the Wisconsin Primary results came in, I shared a blog post I wrote, “Bernie Sanders is Disney Princess,” inspired by the Birdie Sanders meme. Unsurprisingly, I received a response from Sanders supporter @Barkley4Bernie.

I welcomed and appreciated this response. My post is intended to be humorous media and political commentary. I was hoping both Sanders and Clinton supporters would see it as such. @Barkley4Bernie then shared some more opinions.

These are fair assessments. Okay, so he doesn’t agree and takes issue with my assertion that all politicians make promises to gain support. But that’s fine. I responded:

I truly believe that while the Sanders campaign has generated unparalleled enthusiasm, it is not encouraging as much ground game development for the progressive movement as people believe or claim. There needs to a concentrated effort to change voting habits and make people realize the value of their votes on local issues. That is how you build a lasting political revolution beyond a presidential primary.

@Barkley4Bernie counters. He’s really gonna make me see how the devoted Sanders supporters are going to change local level politics.

Wait. Did you just tell me you have never voted? NEVER VOTED. I hope @Barkley4Bernie means in Wisconsin…

That being said, I do like this anecdote. I even said as much during this back and forth. Any political engagement is good, especially coming from a 33-year-old who has never voted. That speaks to the value of #FeeltheBern.

I’m admittedly a cynic. I’ve worked on many grassroots campaigns in Jersey City for nothing more than a dream of a good candidate, a better community and a desire to put up a good fight. I’ve canvassed until my feet bled, phonebanked until my voice was hoarse. I know how much work is needed to get the needle to barely move. The difference between me and @Barkley4Bernie is that I actually play the game in an equally corrupt Democratic city. Because to make any change, you need to play the game in the places where it already exists. In JC,  people on both sides of the Democratic aisle work together to improve their community. They will fight for you and against you like no one else. It’s a great city to participate in politics; it’s fun and enlightening.

Do I get tired? Sure. Did I spend the last two years in grad school rather than being as active as I would like? Yes. But I also know that changing our political systems takes more than believing in one presidential candidate.

Here the conversation pivots from “Look at how Bernie supporters are advocating for good progressives” to “Hey you know Elizabeth Warren? She’ll be your first female POTUS”.

I also don’t know who these “many of us” he’s speaking on behalf of are. (Oh wait, I do. Bernie supporters who will never vote for HRC and lash out at any democrat who will gladly support either. Got it. That’s what I’m dealing with here.)

Anyways, I disagreed with the presumption that I’d only vote for Hillary Clinton because we’re both women.

This argument is baffling.

HRC is “bugling the cause”? How so? Because she’s a flawed candidate? Just so we are clear. The Sanders campaign, in recent days, has also been bugling the cause of not being sexist.

He quotes me back to myself in order to mansplain to me what I meant. Thank you, I know what I wrote and no, I’m not referring solely to HRC. Gender politics are universal. Even if Elizabeth Warren were a presidential nominee, she would not be impervious to gender politics. She wasn’t when she ran for Senate in 2012.

And the Bernie Bros would gallantly defend her via memes? What ridiculous logic is that? As I point out, elections are not won via memes. They simply aren’t.

Really? Ok @Barkley4Bernie, let’s unpack this thought in more than 140 characters. No, I haven’t seen an election like this before. But the absurdity of this particular election does not change the fact that political campaigns need infallible ground games to win. Not all post-Bernie progressive campaigns will be fueled by money, ego and dudes with an exorbitant amount of time to spend on Twitter. If you’re building a political revolution, as the Sanders campaign claims in every email, then they should also be encouraging their supporters to learn the ins and outs of campaign work.

In other words, you can’t predict the future. Has the game really changed? No and we won’t know until the midterm elections in 2018.

Also millennials may not give a fuck, but to what extent? Plus don’t assume all millennials are ardently pro-Bernie. Millennials are not something you can tie a bow around and package as one thing. Many are apprehensive about both a Sanders or Clinton White House because they can see the bigger picture. The push back against either White House will be enormous and possibly more of the same we’ve seen during the Obama administration. As one side of the aisle becomes increasingly more left, another side is becoming increasingly more right. And that is terrifying.

That’s were we left off on Tuesday night. In the morning, especially since I could let the “your missing the forest through the trees” comment go, I responded with:

Remember I’m a cynic. I’ve worked on campaigns in a city where people are much slower to accept changes to their communities. What I want to see is this level of engagement surrounding a presidential election continue.

Why would I know any of this about you, @Barkley4Bernie. You told me you’re a 33 year old lawyer who never votes. You’ve made it seem like you’re suddenly enthralled by a politician – who is a symbol, no less! – for the first time and now you’re actively involved with a campaign for the first time. Meanwhile, I live in a community that doesn’t buy into the symbolism of Bernie Sanders. They want to believe in change, everyone does, but they also see the empty rhetoric of Sanders as president. He’s as you say, a symbol. Why would anyone vote for a symbol and not someone who can get shit done?

By this point, this comment, as many before, irritated me. I don’t need to be lectured about the Sanders campaign anymore. I also won’t be convinced by a Twitter diatribe. I don’t need to told how to volunteer on a campaign or mansplained to anymore. So I responded.
And then.

Thank you? I didn’t realize we were going through old tweets and correcting each other’s grammar. In that case, I’d like to… no, I’m not going there. You can certainly find @Barkley4Bernie’s typos yourself.

So there we have it. This is perhaps the most interesting and insulting set of Tweets I’ve ever encountered. (And this isn’t my first time getting into disagreements on social media that devolve into sexism.)

I did not engage with @Barkley4Bernie as much as he engaged with me. He would fire 4 to 5 tweets before I’d even craft a response. Never once did I point out how completely messed it is that @Barkley4Bernie is 33 and never voted. Yet he wants a pat on the back for volunteering for Sanders. Never once did he ask me who I support; he just assumed Clinton because obviously I am only interested in voting for a woman. Never once did I call him or his views stupid, whereas the moment I asked him to stop being patronizing, he snapped and attacked my intelligence. How does his reaction encourage a healthy political debate? (It doesn’t) How does his reaction reflect on the Sanders campaign? (It does.)

Clearly, we disagree but to what extent? I’m perhaps not feeling the Bern but I’m also not going out of my way to support HRC. I’m not interested in empty rhetoric but I’m also not blinded by a desire to see a female president to also not see her flaws. I just don’t hate Hillary Clinton with the same vigor many Bernie Sanders supporters want you to feel. I’m also not someone you need to have this argument with. I am deeply invested in my community and local Jersey City politics. That seems to be the difference between us.

Because here’s the caveat: If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him and I will support his campaign. I will canvass my community. I will phonebank. Presumably @Barkley4Bernie will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Why would he? His capacity to giving a shit is limited to only getting involved with the rhetoric is high and the results are tbd. Oh wait, I forgot, did I realize he’s a lawyer who gives money and goes to judicial campaigns. Wait, you also said you don’t vote. Now I’m confused.

(Yes, I know the argument that Sanders supporters are mostly Independents without an allegiance to the Democratic party. That’s not an excuse to be condescending.)

Rereading these tweets now, I realize @Barkley4Bernie from the beginning didn’t care for my blog post. He just wanted to fight and when I didn’t share either a hatred for Hillary Clinton or a crazed passion for Bernie Sanders, he resorted to being a patronizing dick.

This election is enormously peculiar. It’s exposing the deep flaws of many people, myself included. People can’t engage in political debate without launching into diatribes or worse, unnecessary insults. When someone has the audacity to call you out on literally the least offensive part of your rant, we resort to pettiness and bullying. I recognized years ago during my first campaign that Twitter is a terrible place to engage in any conversation or debate. Yet it’s also ironic my one and only Twitter debate of this election happened this week, when gender politics have come back into the foreground. It’s all just unfortunate and signals a troubling problem within our wider political discourse.

As Rebecca Traister wrote in New York Magazine today: “It’s too bad this is where Sanders’s invigorating campaign, one that is passionately supported by many ambitious feminist women, may be turning in the final stretch: to a depiction of a female rival that is reliant on some of the very double standards that have helped to ensure that there have been too few female rivals — and no female victors — in presidential politics to date.”

But what do I know? I’m not as bright as I think I am. I’m a hack. I’m pretentious and I don’t know the different between “hear” and “here”. Just like how @Barkley4Bernie doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”. Oh darn, I went there.

When I list my favorite TV series – E.R., Mad Men, Sports Night, Friday Night Lights, Freaks and Geeks, The Good Wife – I always mention Degrassi. I love including Degrassi partly because I enjoy watching someone process how a Canadian teen soap can possibly be on par with more high brow television. I also include Degrassi because it is a damn good television show that often gets passed over simply because it is about teenagers.

You can imagine my disappointment when news broke yesterday that Degrassi: The Next Generation would end its run on TeenNick and MTVCanada after 14 seasons. (Keep in mind, it seems likely that Degrassi will find a new home. Creator Stephen Stohn also tweeted something rather cryptic this morning.) Regardless of what happens next, I’m way more bummed about the mere possibility of Degrassi-less future than a 27-year-old woman should be.

Ironically, although I have an unabashed love for many teen shows (namely Skins), I didn’t start watching Degrassi:The Next Generation until I was in college. Netflix happened to be streaming some of the early seasons and I quickly got drawn into this television universe inhabited by totally normal looking teenagers. By the time Paige was dealing with trauma after being raped and Manny had an abortion at age 14, I was hooked.

Since my initial binge watch, I’ve caught up on Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High. I’ve fallen in love with so many characters and friendships. Ellie Nash is my long lost emo Canadian soul sister. I cried over J.T.’s death. I wanted better for Anya. I hated then loved Holly J. I shipped Eclare at first but I am totally over their relationship now. I could care less about some characters (sorry Chantal) and I will never understand Spemma (Does anyone??). And somehow after all this time, I’m never dissatisfied by an episode of Degrassi. Except maybe when Clare was hooking up with her almost stepbrother.

Everything imaginable has happened at Degrassi High. Abusive parents, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, cancer, murders, cyber bullying, mental illness, school shootings, gang violence, questionable sexy times in the Ravine. Hell, the school practically burned down in the Season 14A finale. What’s amazing is that it took 369 episodes for that to happen.

Unlike so many teen shows, Degrassi has never been out of touch. Thanks to its longevity, it has tackled issues well before they were cultural norms. Lately, the series has been eons ahead of most shows in its representations of teenage sexuality and mental illness.

Fiona and Imogen became a (short-lived) power couple.

Cam, a hockey player, struggled to adapt to Degrassi and committed suicide.

Adam, a transgender student, fought for acceptance and then died while texting and driving.

These narratives, which are so prevalent in the high school experience, have been normalized and validated through the lens of Degrassi. Only The Fosters and sometimes Switched at Birth are consistently on par with Degrassi. Most other teen shows, with their weirdly too old and attractive casts, are too over-the-top and have too many vampires/werewolves/pretty little liars to really feel like authentic representations of being a teenager.

Degrassi has been around for so long now, many fans simply tune in for pure nostalgia. It’s been remarkable to read over the past day how many people actually care that Degrassi could end. I suppose there was always a sense that Degrassi, kind of like the real high school you went to, would be lingering in the background until you were ready to let go completely.

I suppose this was inevitable. The President-Elect, our reality star-in-chief, lashed out against the show that built his celebrity and the network that sustained his brand for nearly a decade.

This shouldn’t be surprising. This is what Trump does. He uses Twitter to distract us from all the other messes he is causing. To distract us from Putin and Russia. But the PEOTUS mocked Celebrity Apprentice for low ratings reveals how Trump is utterly delusional. Here is why:

In the early-2000s, reality television exploded. These shows were inexpensive to produce, merged real life, entertainment and commercialism, and capitalized on emerging digital technologies. I remember watching the first season finale of Survivor with my parents (the “Rat and Snake” speech is classic television) and feeling like this was a huge moment that millions of people were invested in. (51.69 million viewers watched this episode.) While reality television was not unprecedented, everything about the genre was suddenly bigger. Both the sheer quantity of new shows and the size of the media personalities behind them. Reality TV has since evolved from a fad to a ubiquitous genre.

Two favorite pieces in 2016 tackled Trump and the role his celebrity . Ira Madison of MTV looked at how The Apprentice was purely an advertisement for the Trump Empire. Anne Helen Petersen of Buzzfeed tackled the facets of Trump’s celebrity and why he must be analyzed as a celebrity, not a politician. Both pieces provide excellent context for the Trump reality show we are now living in. (Also read this piece about Mark Burnett and Trump on The Ringer.)

The reality genre crafted around the ideas of voyeurism. Audiences tune in to reality series because it so unlike what they experience in their own lives. (Are you an Alaskan fisherman? Why are you watching The Deadliest Catch?) Eventually all reality shows reach their expiration date. This is especially true of the game-doc series which become repetitive season after season.

So the classic game-docs still airing – Survivor, The Bachelor, The Amazing Race, MTV’s The Challenge – are their respective network’s key reality programs. Each show has tie-ins with tabloids, aftershows, podcasts, social media, etc. Their cast members become network personalities (this is particularly true of The Bachelor/The Bachelorette and The Challenge, which sees the cast members return for spinoff after spinoff.) And so, these shows depend on spectacle through casting to sustain their ratings and their brands.

Popular reality shows are also easily derailed by scandal. TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting is my standard example for this argument. For more than a decade, the Duggars were provided a platform to present and normalize their unorthodox family structure and extreme Evangelical beliefs. 19 Kids was TLC’s longest running and highest rated program. This lasted until the scandal forced TLC to cancel 19 Kids. TLC has since launched a Duggars spin-off, Counting On (centered around the Duggars 2.0) but this series is no where near as popular as the original series. It never will be.

Back to Donald Trump and The Apprentice – On The Apprentice, Donald Trump was the spectacle. Audiences loved watching him in this element and delivering the catchphrase “You’re Fired!” Sure, Ivanka was there but this entire program was built around Donald’s showmanship.

Donald Trump is a spectacle.  He always has been. Neal Gabler, writing in 1998, explains that Trump’s blockbuster was so good that not even failure (his bankruptcies, his divorce from Ivana) could close it.

The second Trump announced his candidacy, the 2016 Presidential Election became the most surreal media spectacle of all-time.

Now that Trump is the President-Elect, his reality show has peaked. It has peaked because audiences have caught on to the gimmick. We know he is distracting us and gaslighting America.

And so, Donald Trump is the scandal most likely to bring down his own celebrity and the empire he built. People are not watching Celebrity Apprentice because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a failed movie star. People are not watching Celebrity Apprentice because they are tired of the Trump brand. And it is better to focus on derailing an unstable President-Elect by doing what he hates most: ignore him and deny him the satisfaction that you are watching.

(Hi, yes, my long hiatus is over. I plan on blogging from time to time. Periodic posts will follow.)

Two years ago, InTouch Weekly broke a story about Josh Duggar’s alleged sex crimes and Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s subsequent cover-up of the molestation charges. The scandal led to the cancellation of 19 Kids and Counting, TLC’s most popular and profitable reality series. For nearly 10 years, the Duggars were synonymous with the TLC brand and ending 19 Kids reportedly cost Discovery $19 million.

In theory, a scandal should keep reality stars out of the spotlight. But not the Duggars. In December 2015, TLC aired Jill and Jessa: Counting On, a three episode series that addressed how the family’s adult children, particularly Josh’s wife Anna, were handling the scandal. Nearly 3 million viewers tuned in to witness Jill and Jessa become the Duggar family’s new standard-bearers.

Counting On debuted in March 2016 and the spin-off has effectively rebranded the family. They are the Duggars 2.0. Josh Duggar is noticeably absent from the series but his wife Anna and children make frequent appearances. Jim Bob and Michelle, whose marriage and child rearing practices were at the center of 19 Kids, only show up when the plot needs to be advanced. (Jim Bob gives his blessing to his daughters’ suitors; Michelle assists during her daughters’ deliveries.)

Counting On has chronicled a few personal milestones in the Duggars’ lives:

• Jessa Duggar Seewald gave birth to her second child.
• Jill Duggar Dillard and her husband Derrick have been serving as missionaries in Central America. They are expecting their second child.
• Jinger Duggar courted and married Jeremy Vuolo.
• Joy Duggar began courting Austin Forsyth. They are now engaged and their wedding is rumored to be imminent.
• Joe Duggar began courting Kendra Caldwell.

For the most part, Counting On follows the same episodic structure as 19 Kids and Counting. The Duggar kids go about their daily lives and the women complete mundane household chores. Like 19 Kids, Counting On is about the performance of womanhood within the domestic space. Each task the Duggar daughters complete on Counting On is presented as the normal experience all newlyweds and new parents go through.

And it’s boring. So, so, so boring. But unsurprisingly, Counting On keeps the Duggar brand afloat as they navigate their public lives post-scandal. At the rate the Duggars begin courtships, get engaged, married, and have children, Counting On is guaranteed to have at least one wedding or birth special per season.

All of this just sets the scene for the Duggar family’s latest development. Four of the Duggar daughters — Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Jinger Vuolo, and Joy Duggar — have filed a federal invasion of privacy suit against InTouch,the city of Springdale, Arkansas, and Washington County, Arkansas. The Duggar lawsuit is not unlike the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker and alleges that the “plaintiffs had no knowledge that the highly personal and painful details revealed in their confidential interviews would be disclosed to anyone except law enforcement and child services personnel. Indeed, they were instructed that their statements would remain confidential and not be released to the public.”

The sisters provided an additional statement, telling E! News: “This case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse. Revealing juvenile identities under these circumstances is unacceptable, and it’s against the law. The media and custodians of public records who let these children down must be held accountable. This case has vast implications for all our children. We hope that by bringing this case to the public’s attention, all children will be protected from reckless reporting.”

The timing of the lawsuit is particularly noteworthy. Initially, only Jill and Jessa came forward as Josh’s victims. In an exclusive interview with Megyn Kelly on The Kelly File, the sisters detailed the abuse and publicly forgave their brother. In this same interview, Jill and Jessa criticize InTouch, calling the tabloid’s reporting “a re-victimization that’s even a thousand times worse.” These comments are more or less reiterated in the lawsuit

The family did not confirm Jinger or Joy’s involvement until now. It does make sense that the Duggars initially shielded Joy, who was a minor in 2015. But what else shifted? Well, the four Duggar daughters are now married or soon-to-be married. The Duggars are followers of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and the Quiverfull movement. As described by Kathryn Joyce in Newsweek, Quiverfull is a pro-purist lifestyle and its followers view contraception “as a form of abortion and considering even natural family planning an attempt to control a realm — fertility — that should be entrusted to divine providence.” Quiverfull is anti-feminist, patriarchal Christianity that is spread through homeschooling, and most often, the Quiverfull do not identify themselves as part of the movement. (The Duggars do not.) But to paraphrase Heather Doney, co-founder of Homeschooling’s Invisible Children, the Duggars are the Kardashians of Quiverfull.

As followers of Quiverfull, the Duggar women are most valuable when they are fulfilling their divine purpose as women: marriage and motherhood. If Jinger and Joy were revealed as Josh’s victims before entering courtships, it would potentially harm their marriageability. As one friend noted to me on Twitter, waiting until Jinger and Joy were married and engaged to file the lawsuit effectively preserved their future ability to submit to men.

Jana Duggar, the eldest Duggar daughter, is also noticeably absent from these legal proceedings. (Presumably because she is not one of her brother’s victims.) At 27, Jana is unmarried and acts as a second mother figure for her younger siblings, as seen on both 19 Kids and Counting On. Compared to her four sisters, who received television specials for fulfilling their duties as women (successful courtship, marriage, and motherhood), Jana and her domestic labor remains in the background. (Stay-at-home daughters are common in Quiverfull and fundamentalist Christian families.)

The Duggars lawsuit is yet another indicator of how specific hypocrisies sustain their family brand. By claiming “this case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse,” the Duggars are reasserting an image of themselves as good Christian saviors. They claim to be protecting innocent victims from careless reporting while denying how their religious practices preserve cycles of abuse. Former Quiverfull followers, such as Vickie Garrison of No Longer Quivering, have written extensively on how the movement keeps women in submissive positions. In one post, Garrison explains, “Quiverfull is a mindset (a very powerful head trip) in which each family becomes a cult unto itself with Daddy enshrined as the supreme Patriarch.” Vice has also reported on the larger Christian abuse problem.

The Duggars might be, as Jessa Seewald told Megyn Kelly in 2015, “just a family that just happened to be on TV”. And yes, we owe the Duggar sisters the same respect we give other sexual assault survivors. But this family has an unparalleled ability to survive scandal and and keep a public presence. They undeniably have had it easy compared to other reality TV pariahs. We must remain critical of the platforms the Duggars are given and the way they frame their own story.

I’m deeply fascinated by Mama June’s $75,000 makeover, having written about it for Buzzfeed. With Season 2 of Mama June: From Not to Hot premiering next week, I’ll finally get the answer to my question: “What happens to June once she loses the cultural signifiers that present her as both female grotesque and authentic redneck working-class woman?”

Well, if the trailer is any indication, we are in for another excellent and cringe-worthy experience.

If you don’t want to watch the trailer (honestly, why would you?), highlights include:

June is still being positioned as having the greatest transformation in reality TV history, as if we all haven’t seen the cast of Vanderpump Rules and their many sets of veneers.

June’s new gimmick storyline for the season as a pageant queen in training, coached by Queen Alana.

A reprise of many talents.

17-year-old Lauryn’s surprise pregnancy.

The return of June’s niece Amber

Moments you better rednecknognize

The continued fascination with Sugar Bear as an object of desire.

And the constant reminder that June’s multiple cosmetic surgeries are actually, really dangerous.

I’m ready. Are you?

Season 2 of Mama June: From Not to Hot premieres Friday, January 12 at 9 p.m. on WEtv. Yes, I’ll be recapping it.

Trading Spaces returned to TLC last week. Generally, I have been opposed to the reboot trend. This is an easy way for television networks to make money without supporting up-and-coming creative talent. The unfortunate success of Roseanne will only make the reboot trend even worse. But, for whatever reason, I am fine with networks bringing back iconic reality shows. In many cases, these reality shows are money-makers that anchor a network (why else is Survivor still airing?), and their overall success is better for a network in the long run.

Something like Jersey Shore: Family Vacation, which also premiered last week, takes advantage of its truly genius casting and reunites the older Shore cast for a 13 episode sequel. It’s a family reunion with people you never knew you missed in the first place. Producer Sally Ann Salsano ― whose knock-off series Party Down South and Floribama Shore have never replicated the mega success of Jersey Shore ― would be remiss to not send the Shore cast on vacations and turn cameras on them at all times.

Now I’ve always been a reality television addict and certain shows ― the ones that were phenomenons without the benefit of Twitter ― hold deeper meaning for me than something like Jersey Shore.  Trading Spaces is that show. I didn’t know I needed it back in my life until I saw the reboot’s trailer. Everyone is back. Even Frank, who I swore was 90 years old the first time around.

When Trading Spaces first aired in 2000, I was in middle school. 9/11 hadn’t happened. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hadn’t happened yet. Social media hadn’t happened yet. Almost no one had cell phones. And on TLC ― a network I love more than any other  ― we hadn’t been introduced to the Gosselins or the Duggars yet. Honey Boo Boo was a phrase we’d never thought we’d hear. It was a different world.

At 11-years-old, I was already a TV junkie, becoming easily obsessed with anything and everything. ER during those years was basically oxygen for me. And you should’ve known me during the first season of Survivor. 18 years later, I still know that first season better than any single season of a reality show. My obsessions with pop culture and celebrities were born out of extreme loneliness and shyness. Pop culture gave me something to connect with during a time when I had so few friends and ― like so many teenagers ― I felt complete misplaced in the world.

There is incredible nostalgia for pop culture from the 90s and early 2000s, largely because 90s kids have a loud voice on Internet. But I was surprised how much nostalgia I felt for Trading Spaces when the reboot was announced. Unlike classic Nick shows, which I sometimes watch with friends, or even ER, which I excitedly binge-watched on Hulu, I forgot how much I loved Trading Spaces.

My dedication to Trading Spaces was deep. I watched every episode, usually with my parents, debating the designs and laughing when the homeowners really loathed the final product. (Never forget the “I really hate brown” lady.) I even went to a book signing of the Official Trading Spaces Behind the Scenes book with designer Laurie Smith. (I got so starstruck I forgot my own name.) I saw Chicago on Broadway because Mindy Paige Davis Page was playing Roxy Hart.

But eventually, like all pop culture obsessions, my interest faded. It happened once host Paige Davis left in 2004 and the original concept shifted to keep fans slightly more invested. By the time I left for college, I had moved beyond needing the calming simplicity of Trading Spaces in the my life. When the show was canceled in 2008, not only had once die hard fans like myself moved on but TLC had also shifted to its new identity. Every show on TLC ―whether it was Say Yes to the Dress, 19 Kids and Counting or even the weird gem of a show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska (how I wish we could go back to a time when failed politicians became reality stars and not the other way around) ― needed to embrace being extreme.

And so, there was no real place for Trading Spaces anymore.

Watching back those episodes now ―TLC blessed us with marathons of classic episodes leading to the reboot’s premiere ― they feel beautifully struck in the mid-2000s. The designs are so bad that you know the homeowners had to fix the final product. The designers are whimsical, wacky, and stubbornly committed to terrible design plans. (God I hope Hildi is kept away from all miscellaneous garden supplies during the new episodes.) But the show itself is safe. As the real world beyond the bubble contained by Trading Spaces became darker and darker, the show stayed simple and calm. It was always an anecdote for whatever extremities were – are – going on in the real world. It feels like the parts of my childhood I want to remember.

I wasn’t able to catch the premiere episode of the Trading Spaces reboot until now. But when I watch the premiere, I was immediately lulled into a quiet calm of what life was like before we got to this weird and awful place we are now.

The San Bernardino shooting yesterday became the 355th mass shooting in the United States this year. As we enter the second day of news coverage about this horrific event, the typical narrative surrounding a mass shooting is significantly different than the coverage of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, the Umpqua Community College shooting, the Charleston church shooting . (How depressing is it that we know exactly how the standard media narrative following a mass shooting the U.S. will play out?)

But pay attention to how the media will frame the San Bernardino shooting. As more information comes to light about the shooters, we will dealing with a completely different story. I was watching CNN last night just as Don Lemon and co. became convinced it wasn’t just another mass shooting but rather an act of terrorism. Following the Paris terrorist attacks on November 13, this rhetorical shift is dangerous.

Whatever the reasons behind the shooting, two contradictory perspectives cannot be effectively balanced in the media. There can be no nuanced discussions about any of the many issues that come into play (gun control, mental health, anti-terrorism) when a mass shooting happens.